Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1978 1978 (8) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 181 to 187 of 187 Records

• 1978 (8) TMI 7 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Debt Due, Deduction, Estate Duty, Firm, Goodwill

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... eof is ascertained in future. The liability arises for the first time when the order imposing the penalty is passed. Till such an order is passed, it is impossible for anybody to say as to what is the quantum of penalty which the defaulting party will be required to pay. Such being the nature of the penalty, the liability arose for the first time when the order was passed on March 29, 1963. Since this order was passed after the date of death of the deceased, it cannot be regarded as a debt due by the deceased at the time of his death. As it is not a debt due at the date of death of the deceased, under s. 44 of the E.D. Act, deduction in respect thereof will not be permissible and, in our opinion, the E.D. authorities and the Tribunal were right in rejecting the claim of the accountable person for deduction in respect thereof. Accordingly, our answer to question No. 3 is in the negative and in favour of the revenue. The accountable person shall pay the costs of the reference.

  ---

• 1978 (8) TMI 6 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... nature and source of the cash credit entries. Here, the assessee s own case was that the particulars as disclosed by those entries were false and fictitious. The assessee sought to explain the said cash credit entries only after the same were found out by the ITO as pointed out by the Tribunal. The said entries were also sought to be supported by a document showing that the alleged loans were taken from such employees. We accept the contention of Mr. Sen that the assessee deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of its income and concealed the same by trying to pass the same off as loans. This brings the present case squarely within the provisions of s. 28(1)(c) of the, Act and satisfies all the conditions laid down therein, and there is no scope for bringing in further facts or materials to impose and sustain the penalty. For the reasons as stated above, we answer the question referred in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. There will be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1978 (8) TMI 5 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Penalty, Wealth Tax

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... tioner files returns for the earlier years in question and pays the tax due on it within a month from today. If the assessee does so, the application made for the waiver of penalty will be considered by the Commissioner afresh. In this view, the impugned order of the Commissioner is liable to be set aside. We, therefore, direct that the petitioner will file the returns under the W.T. Act, for the years 1957-58 to 1964-65, within a month and pay the wealth-tax due thereon within a fortnight from the date of service of the notice of demand. In that event, the impugned order dated January 21, 1978, passed by the Commissioner shall stand set aside. The Commissioner will pass a fresh order on the application for waiver moved by the assessee, in accordance with law. In the circumstances, the parties will bear their own costs. In case the assessee fails to file the returns and pay the tax demanded within the time mentioned above, this writ petition shall stand dismissed with costs.

  ---

• 1978 (8) TMI 4 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... gift made by H.E.H. the Nizam and on the other hand Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan, the successor, has filed the gift-tax returns after the death of Nizam on April 28, 1969, as his legal representative declaring taxable gift of Rs. 23.5 lakhs for the assessment years 1962-63. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the assessee that gift tax was also paid. In those circumstances, this asset has definitely ceased to be the wealth of the late Nizam. In the result, our answer to the questions in Referred Case No. 59/76 are that a valid trust was created by the late Nizam in June, 1961, in respect of the shares of the face value of Rs. 23.5 lakhs, and that the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the trust formed in June, 1961 was a part of the trust formed earlier on August 12, 1957. Our answer to the question in Referred Case No. 63 of 1978, is in the affirmative. In the circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their own costs. Advocates s fee Rs. 250 in each.

  ---

• 1978 (8) TMI 3 - PATNA HIGH COURT
  

  Capital Gains, Income

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... older in respect of his share held in a company in liquidation, the receipt is deemed to arise from the transfer of a capital asset, which squarely falls within the purview of s. 45 of the Act. It then becomes an income within the meaning of s. 2(24) of the Act. The argument of Mr. Bharuka has, therefore, to be rejected.. Regard being had to the discussions made above, the question is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee i.e., the amount of Rs.. 11,226 was assessable in the hands of the assessee under the head Capital gain . Mr. Bharuka states that the assessee-opposite party had challenged the inclusion of the said sum of Rs. 11,226 in his income on certain other grounds also, which the Tribunal did not think necessary to consider, having regard to the view that it took on the matter. If that is so, the Tribunal may look into the other grounds raised, concerning this item, by the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1978 (8) TMI 2 - PATNA HIGH COURT
  

  Business Income, Deduction

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... I.T Act, the assessee is entitled to deduction under the aforesaid provision on the total income as assessed. The ITO was of the view that the percentage of reserve is to be taken on the income calculated under the head Income from business and deduction should be allowed at the given percentage on the total income after allowing reserve. The AAC as well as the Tribunal has accepted the stand of the assessee. Thereafter, as already stated, at the instance of the Commissioner, a reference has been made under s. 256(l) of the I.T. Act. Similar question was referred to this court and decided in Tax Case No. 96 of 1971. CIT v. Bihar State Financial Corporation . The only difference was that in the assessment year in question the percentage of reserve deductible under s. 36(l)(viii) was 10 per cent. instead of 25 per cent. For the reasons given in the aforesaid decision, we answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1978 (8) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Company Director - Business Expenditure - whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the disallowance of the amounts out of the remuneration and commission paid to directors of the company by resort to section 10(4A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was unjustified - High Court has held that the payments to directors are not excessive

  ---

1 ....678910